[2025:RJ-JP:47149] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 15337/2025 Om Dev Rathi S/o Shri Jaibhagwan Rathi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Doghat, Bagpat, Uttar Pradesh. (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15338/2025 Jitendra Singh S/o Shri Vijay Bahadur, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of T- 94/16, Gali No 16, Sadnagar Palam Colony 2, Palam Gaon, South West Delhi. (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/11/2025 1. These applications for bail under Section 483 BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.348/2025 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 204, 61(2) & 127(2) of BNS. [2025:RJ-JP:47149] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15337/2025] 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioners was refused by this Court while granting liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of victims namely Prabhu Mal Choudhary and Sushil Kumar. Counsel submits that now both the victims have been examined during the course of trial. Thus, these bail applications have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that testimony of both the victims would reveal that the accused- petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that both the victims failed to identity the petitioners during the course of their testimony and in very clear terms, they have stated that they are seeing the petitioners for the first time in Court. Counsel further submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that the petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications, but fairly concedes that the victims have not identified the petitioners during the course of their testimony. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the facts that the victims have not identified the petitioners during the course of their testimony; absence of criminal antecedents; trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but [2025:RJ-JP:47149] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15337/2025] without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications. 7. Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Om Dev Rathi S/o Shri Jaibhagwan Rathi & (2) Jitendra Singh S/o Shri Vijay Bahadur shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /88-89